CAP has been doing this mission for over 40 years. Not exactly a new mission.

Great! As I mentioned in the post, I didn't know if it was being done elsewhere. I've only been around 3 years and this is the first time I've seen it in our Wing. Anyway ... its yet another mission we do that will keep us busy as SAR tapers off. A good thing. Keep us flying .

My wing has been flying a fire patrol mission for the last few years. Our dept of forestry has cut back on the funding for staffing fire towers, and we have a good sized national forest, so we fly an afternoon/evening patrol to look for things so they don't burn overnight.

Puts a fair amount of time on the planes, we actually have a hard time finding crews due to the week day nature of the sorties.

My wing has been flying a fire patrol mission for the last few years. Our dept of forestry has cut back on the funding for staffing fire towers, and we have a good sized national forest, so we fly an afternoon/evening patrol to look for things so they don't burn overnight.

Puts a fair amount of time on the planes, we actually have a hard time finding crews due to the week day nature of the sorties.

There was a pilot locally working for the forestry folks in our state, but he recently retired. Might be something we could jump into. If you have any particulars to share, I'd appreciate a PM. Maybe I could spark some interest at Wing, if they are not already on it. Several of us locally could do weekday runs.

WMIRS shows almost the half the wings are flying low-level route surveys of MTRs. Amazing what goes on in a national organization.

Quote

Who is paying for this?

The requesting agency, which for MTRs, is the unit responsible for the route.

Quote

I'm assuming the AF for the route surveys.

Not all low-level routes belong to the Air Force. In our state, some are the responsibility of the Air National Guard, and there may be routes around the country "owned" by other DoD entities. A route can cross state/wing boundaries. A few routes in our state are flown by another CAP wing because the routes are the responsibility of an Air Force unit in the other state.

USAF route survey requirements are contained in AFI 13-201 "The evaluation should be conducted at the slowest operational airspeed consistent with the type of aircraft normally flying the route. Use of Civil Air Patrol, aero club, or contract/charter is acceptable, but not required." That operational speed and type of aircraft statement and use of CAP seem a bit incongruous, given what normally use MTRs. We were stood down on a missing aircraft mission because a B-1 and F-16 flying a low-level spotted the wreckage (which was not under the MTR).

Quote

The state forestry service could surely save some money if they paid CAP instead of full-time pilots on staff and airplane upkeep.

There is an old CAP Talk discussion about a similar idea. A few years ago Maine decided to stop using contract pilots to fly fire watch and use CAP instead. Lively discussion here and in Maine about that.

Our wing has agreements with several counties, not the state, for flying fire watch.

My wing has been flying a fire patrol mission for the last few years. Our dept of forestry has cut back on the funding for staffing fire towers, and we have a good sized national forest, so we fly an afternoon/evening patrol to look for things so they don't burn overnight.

Puts a fair amount of time on the planes, we actually have a hard time finding crews due to the week day nature of the sorties.

Depending on where the funding comes from, there might be constraints on using USAF equipment to displace private businesses. I think Federal funds may have don't compete requirements. I'm surprised State governments don't have similar stipulations for appropriated tax dollars.

My wing has been flying a fire patrol mission for the last few years. Our dept of forestry has cut back on the funding for staffing fire towers, and we have a good sized national forest, so we fly an afternoon/evening patrol to look for things so they don't burn overnight.

Puts a fair amount of time on the planes, we actually have a hard time finding crews due to the week day nature of the sorties.

Depending on where the funding comes from, there might be constraints on using USAF equipment to displace private businesses. I think Federal funds may have don't compete requirements. I'm surprised State governments don't have similar stipulations for appropriated tax dollars.

If it's an AF mission, then yes you have to exhaust all other resources first. Same rule that is followed when Guard/Reserve aircraft are used to fight fires.If it's a CAP mission then it's up to the MOU between CAP and the state.

I know it's been said by me and others before - CAP is not intended to be a replacement force of people working for free in roles that would otherwise be done by paid professionals, it's intended to be an augmentation force to supplement in areas where the resources don't exist, aren't robust enough, or are exhausted.

This has been a noted issue forever with professional flight instructors - everyone is all in favor ofrecruiting new pilots and getting member CFIs to do it for free, until the subject of "bread and butter" comes up in that you're asking someone to literally give up their meal ticket. Most can on occasion,or with some limitations, but few can do it at a level that impacts their own livelihood.

A great way to engender animosity towards CAP is to start wandering into areas with strong unionsand discussing CAP working for free. It's bad enough that most of these jobs will be gone in 10 years with UAVs, let alone by unpaid aircrews in "free" airplanes that the person losing the work is actually supplementing through their taxes.

At least in my parts, CD, for example, is an area where the state has its own taxpayer-funded resources and sworn pilots. CAP gets work in areas where there is no state resource, or when their resources are unavailable for maintenance, vacation, etc. Everyone wins.But start discussing much more then that, and people get quiet fast.

As a taxpayer, I want the biggest bang for the buck, as a member, I want a GA community that welcomes CAP's presence.

Which is it? Scylla or charybdis?

(And the above is "blue sky" and doesn't even account for typical CAP issues regarding depth, availability, and execution.)

I know it's been said by me and others before - CAP is not intended to be a replacement force of people working for free in roles that would otherwise be done by paid professionals, it's intended to be an augmentation force to supplement in areas where the resources don't exist, aren't robust enough, or are exhausted.

Spot on.

Sometimes, I get the sense that there's an upset that CAP's mission/involvement isn't always the most prevalent. Maybe it's due to the arrangements in the locale or state laws that 'impede on CAP's mission' (yeah, I reversed how that works, right?).

People need to face it. CAP's mission is limited in function and capability. When it can perform its mission, it can do an outstanding job. But it's not always the most effective means despite everyone wishing we were always the "first call." There are a lot of unknowns, from the equipment that can be made available at that moment in time to the people. Look at how many people get ground team or air qualifications that have no intention of actually being on the call tree.

I think it's a point of frustration for people who do commit themselves frequently that find some of their peers to be operationally unreliable. Now, what's nice is that under the Cadet Programs front, we have new guidance on how to handle working with limited resources and last-minute cancellations. But that's fine for a training program.

Maybe there just needs to be an acceptance that CAP is not going to be the first call every time, and maybe never if you live in an area that other resources are just more prevalent on a scale that a volunteer structure such as this cannot compete with. There are other areas where CAP is the go-to.

That all said, "SAR" is not CAP's only mission at this point, and I think the many training elements of CAP and topics on this board greatly discuss the wide variety of roles CAP is involved in. Maybe this is a misuse of the term "SAR?"

That all said, "SAR" is not CAP's only mission at this point, and I think the many training elements of CAP and topics on this board greatly discuss the wide variety of roles CAP is involved in.

Exactly. I started this thread due to our Wing doing the MTR surveys, and still being a relative newbie (3 years) I'd never heard about it. So yes, I got excited about it. Then I get told its been a CAP mission for 40 years. Even better.

It was the same "excitement" I felt when I went to Syracuse and flew escort. The same excitement when we started doing training for Army air traffic controllers in our Wing. (For about a year its one week nearly every month.)

Point is, yes I read all the threads from folks who complain about SAR training for missions that never come their way, and then I see all these great new and existing uses for CAP that could still keep us flying for years.

Ground Teams? I forget which thread, but just a day or two ago someone was talking about some new Wing training for CAP to help with POD systems in cases of natural disasters. Hopefully that will spread to other Wings quickly.

Yes, search and rescue (other than the cell forensics team) may dwindle over time for us, but I'm pumped about all the other this we do, and can do.

Its time for new marketing materials and a big push toward letting potential members know all these other great things we are doing. SAR can be on page three of the brochure.

We flew a MTR this week. Flew down one side 2.8 hours, stopped for fuel and a nice lunch, then back back the other side for 3.1. Full crew (MP, MO, AP) so we had plenty of eyes, and we did find 7 new uncharted obstructions. Mostly cell phone towers, and two that appeared to be radio stations. Took photos of each, along with the GPS coordinates and description. Mission accomplished. Fun day of funded flying.

We flew a MTR this week. Flew down one side 2.8 hours, stopped for fuel and a nice lunch, then back back the other side for 3.1. Full crew (MP, MO, AP) so we had plenty of eyes, ... Mission accomplished. Fun day of funded flying.

Here we have the fundamental reason why CAP should be wary of displacing busineses that do this stuff for a living. For them, and their employees, each mission is a lot more than a lark... "a fun day of funded flying."

We flew a MTR this week. Flew down one side 2.8 hours, stopped for fuel and a nice lunch, then back back the other side for 3.1. Full crew (MP, MO, AP) so we had plenty of eyes, and we did find 7 new uncharted obstructions. Mostly cell phone towers, and two that appeared to be radio stations. Took photos of each, along with the GPS coordinates and description. Mission accomplished. Fun day of funded flying.

You were doing just great until that last line where you lost all credibility.

You're here to do a job and to do it well. Maybe you need to review the National Commander's latest guidance on Aircrew Professionalism.

^^^^ That is why we have retention issues. Too many who think you cannot be professional and also have fun. Whatís up with you starched shirt guys. Geez!

Itís what I love about our Squadron. We are always at or near the top in the Wing. Always ready to jump on a Mission and we stay very busy. And everyone loves our results. But yes, we have FUN. A great group of folks.

The starched shirts are the ones holding up all the rest of the corners that allow a select few to "have fun" and then have to deal with the ramifications of that "fun".

Thatís just crazy. You can be professional and still have a smile on your face. I guess itís a good thing I never graced the doors of some of the Squadrons yíall belong to when I started. . All the sad, stern faces. 😳

The starched shirts are the ones holding up all the rest of the corners that allow a select few to "have fun" and then have to deal with the ramifications of that "fun".

Thank you for your service.

I had fun yesterday flying orientation flights - will have fun today conducting aircrew training. Every minute I spend with this organization is fun - even when I meet those who "deal with the ramifications of me having fun", I find that fun too.

No one said not to have fun, it's how you characterize it that's the issue.

etodd, again, your admittedly limited perspective may put you at a disadvantage, butat this point you've been around the block more then enough to understand how CAP actually works.

CAP has had a historic issue with pilots who refuse to do anything but fly, and in many cases only on the government's dime, then they arrive ill-prepared, disconnected from current operations and procedures, and make a mess of things for those who keep the doors open the rest of the 167 hours that week, so it's a hot-buttonto a lot of us dust-back-drafters when we hear stuff like that.

There's plenty of things in CAP that are "fun", but they are generally circled around getting missions and tasksperformed, or bringing others into the fold and seeing them perform.

Frankly, "fun" is over-rated. People should be striving for "satisfaction". There are a lot of things in lifethat aren't "fun", but when completed are very satisfying.

CAP has had a historic issue with pilots who refuse to do anything but fly, and in many cases only on the government's dime, then they arrive ill-prepared, disconnected from current operations and procedures, and make a mess of things for those who keep the doors open the rest of the 167 hours that week, so it's a hot-buttonto a lot of us dust-back-drafters when we hear stuff like that.

It's interesting how many pilots I know in CAP yet only a handful of them regularly fly training sorties or orientation flights, let alone "actual missions" (but you can't really control that, I suppose...to some extent). I generally see the same faces on the flight line.

Quote

There's plenty of things in CAP that are "fun", but they are generally circled around getting missions and tasksperformed, or bringing others into the fold and seeing them perform.

Frankly, "fun" is over-rated. People should be striving for "satisfaction". There are a lot of things in lifethat aren't "fun", but when completed are very satisfying.

I think "fun" goes hand-in-hand with retention. There has to be some form of fulfillment for someone. Awards are a great tool to recognize someone for something that may not have been fun, but the work paid off. Personally, I like to recognize those who go "This wasn't fun, but it had to get done."

On that note, there are a number of fun things that happen 'at the bottom' that the people at the top of an activity don't get to experience. That comes with the job. Sometimes, you have to not have fun so someone else can. But it can't be perpetual, or else you get burned out.

So I get the point about the satisfaction of success. Maybe we're using synonymous terms here that are subjective to the individual.

Bottom line: if morale isn't maintained, numbers drop. That's not always a bad thing depending on who you're dropping, but I don't like to have a policy of "I'll hold the door open" because it's a general, blanket statement that affects everyone. There are absolutely people I would prefer over others to stick around, despite the amount of fun we have.

If we can accomplish our tasks while having fun, by all means. If we're having fun and getting nothing done, we have a problem. The root cause? Unknown. But we have to figure it out and correct it.

If we can accomplish our tasks while having fun, by all means. If we're having fun and getting nothing done, we have a problem. The root cause? Unknown. But we have to figure it out and correct it.

And there you have it. As I said earlier, I believe our Squadron to be one of the most successful in our Wing, AND the most fun. Yes, you can have the best of both worlds. But it truly takes the right combination of people. Maybe we are unique. I would sure hate to think thatís the case.